The Illinois Supreme Court has ordered that four lawsuits challenging Illinois' new pension reform law be consolidated so they're all heard together in Sangamon County Circuit Court.

By Doug FinkeState Capitol Bureau

All four lawsuits challenging last year’s pension reform law will be consolidated and heard in Sangamon County.

The Illinois Supreme Court entered the order Monday.

Four lawsuits were filed challenging the pension reforms and saying they violated the Illinois Constitution’s protections against diminishing pension benefits. One of the lawsuits was filed in Cook County while the other three were filed in Sangamon County.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office initially asked the court to consolidate all of the cases in Cook County. Attorneys for the plaintiffs who filed in Sangamon County wanted the cases heard in Springfield.

Springfield attorney Don Craven, who filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Illinois State Employees Association Retirees, argued that cases tend to move more quickly in Sangamon County than Cook, which could produce a speedier resolution.

However, he downplayed the idea that having the cases heard in a Sangamon County will give an edge to the retirees.

“Everybody knows this case is going to be decided by the Illinois Supreme Court,” Craven said.

In fact, a Sangamon County judge previously ruled the state could charge retirees premiums for their state-subsidized health insurance. That decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court, which has yet to issue a ruling.

State lawmakers last year approved reforms designed to save the state $160 billion in pension payments over the next 30 years and wipe out the $100 billion pension debt.

The reforms change the 3 percent compounded annual raises in pension benefits, raise the retirement age and limit the salary on which a pension can be earned.

Retired teachers, retired state workers and a coalition of public employee unions all filed lawsuits contending the change violates the pension protection clause of the state Constitution. That clause calls pension benefits an “enforceable contractual relationship” between government and workers and says the benefits cannot be “diminished or impaired.”

The reform bill also cut by one percentage point the amount of contributions workers must make toward their pensions. Pension reform proponents believe that “consideration” in exchange for lowering benefits makes the reforms constitutional.

Although the pension reforms are supposed to save the state money, state officials so far are not banking on any savings when trying to craft a new budget.